MichFan

Nugent lives in my area (Centerville, OH). Don't even begin to compare him with Janikowski - this kid is a quality person with a solid head on his shoulders. I would love to see him play for the Bills, and that's coming from a Michigan fan. There would suddenly be a lot of Bills fans around here if he were to be drafted by them.

I actually think a 2nd rounder for Drew alone is high because people know the troubles the Bills are having with him at QB. But if you package Drew and Travis together in a trade, you kill two birds with one stone, clear up some cap room, and get in position to draft a player who can contribute in '05.

I'd take a high two. I want Nugent and he may still be around then.

If TD were planning to trade DB, it wouldn't be very smart to say he had an awful year and is washed up. I wouldn't take positive remarks by TD or RW as indications Drew is staying.

Where?

Add Place Kicker to our top 3 needs. I'd be impressed if Donahoe can move us up enough with the TH trade to get us in position to draft Mike Nugent and then sign him to a long term deal.

Think about how many times this year Drew has led this team to a win with his playmaking. Then think about how many times Drew has piddled games away in clutch situations. I have long been a Bledsoe defender, but the fact is that the leadership and intangibles you expect to get from a veteran vs. a rookie were not there this year. Look at his stats during the winning streak and there aren't any great days as QB's go. Drew is done as an NFL starter unless the Tuna is willing to take a shot with him.

Brutal+honest = Brutally honest. Way to call it, Joe.

I don't think the Pats, Colts, or Chargers are all that worried about the Bills in the playoffs. While we are on a very impressive late season run, it has been against soft or suspect teams. We still have many of the weaknesses we've had all season, and quality teams will exploit them the way the Pats did. When I saw Freeney burning Ogden at will last night, I had images of Bledsoe on his back at least 6 times were the Bills to play the Colts in the playoffs. I hope I'm wrong, and I'd love to see the Bills make the playoffs just to get the experience again, but I think a playoff game against Indy could be pretty embarrasing.

I am hoping for the boxed set with all three extended editions for Christmas, so I haven't seen the scene you're talking about. My guess is that Jackson thought it was important to provide closure to the characters. Audiences became very connected to each of them over the course of three movies, so I believe it was time well spent. It also made Frodo's leaving due to his inability to fit back in with routine hobbit life more dramatic. ROTK was fairly action-filled, so he probably didn't think he needed more action at the loss of providing such closure. I'm sure word of mouth on this Gandalf scene will also improve sales of the extended edition...

I hope so, but I'm not sure they will. Cincy's passing game is firing on all cylinders right now and that could be trouble for our defense given the way teams have had success through the air against us. Maybe Vincent is the guy to change things in that regards. The expected 25 mph winds should also help.

Some differentiate between the two (civil unions and marriage), others don't. My points apply to both. With regards to a religious foundation: Society over this timeframe has also included atheists, the definition precedes Christianity, and it is practiced among most every society on the planet regardless of religion. Are you suggesting religion is behind why it takes a sperm and an egg to create life, only men have sperm, and only women have eggs? And now religion is the basis of our voting system? Missed the memo on voting at my local church instead of my library. Hope they still counted it... I have described in previous posts the physiological basis which this comment was based upon with no need to reference any world religion. So now you are buying into the thought that God placed HIV/AIDS on the earth to punish gays? I thought only religious freaks felt that way. I thought you disagreed with the religious freaks. GG, there is not even a hint of morality or religion in these points. Try to avoid the kneejerk liberal reaction of taking wehatever conservative points you can't debate on gay marriage and accusing those making them of violating the separation of church and state. I have intentionally stayed away from that in this topic.

JF - based on the quality of your posts I can tell you're not an idiot. With regards to my posts being obnoxious -- some in this topic have been to make a point. Most everyone around here uses sarcasm and extremist positions at times in that manner. Tennyboy makes/made a living out of it. Many of my posts have presented the case against gay marriage from my perspective in a mature manner. We've been baiting each other back and forth with our posts and I didn't know if you were doing it for fun or because you were personally bothered. Obviously it was the latter. Sorry that my comments regarding you have pissed you off so much. At the same time, I stand by my positions on gay marriage and will agressively debate based on my obviously strong opinions on the issue. I don't think anything I've said in the most extreme form is outside the realm of typical PPP banter. I also believe I have thrown out plenty of red meat for debate on the issue which can't be said of everyone taking shots at this topic.

I'm glad you can only refute this one point, it goes to show that I was dead on with my previous post. I'm not going to provide links to that information. A master debater like you surely knows how to use google or yahoo. There are plenty of sites that discuss the damage that can be done by anal sex. As for the attack on me, it goes to show that you are threatened by a rational argument against gay marriage. It's probably because you have yet to be able to do anything but challenge what I'm saying. I have no personal experience with the subject matter other than having been frequently woken up by the violent sound of gay "love" between neighbors at a prior residence. JF's master debating skills = Waaah! MichFan called me a lib. Waah! MichFan said anal sex is abusive. Waah! Where's the study? Waah, waah, waah!

How about: - society for at least the last couple of thousand years has defined marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman - a man and a woman are the only two that can come together naturally and make a family - approx. 70% of those given the opportunity to vote on gay marriage have voted against it - the act of anal sex is unnatural, unhealthy, and in many cases both physically and psychologically abusive to those who succumb to it - homosexuality (followed by bisexuality) ignited the spread of one of the largest public health disasters of our time (HIV/AIDS) Huh, I guess I can.

Libs have a hard time arguing the case for gay marriage, therefore they just make an emotional argument and part of that process is callling anyone who disagrees with them haters, bigots, and religious zealots on par with those who disagreed with equal rights for African Americans and women. Gays are not systematically being deprived freedoms and equal rights in our society the way that African Americans and women were. They have in fact only two niche issues -- civil unions and marriage. Morality is the key barrier to success in these issues, and in the libs' desperation they have sunken to the level of attempting to make people feel bad about their morals and values. As the past election shows, this is pissing a lot of people off and causing normally silent people to particpate in the democratic process to ensure morality is an issue that the libs can't conveniently bury.

Only if Monica is there under Bill's poncho.

From my perspective, the ACLU has made themselves the mouthpiece of the liberal agenda. This really is not fair to liberals, because the ACLU in fact has redefined liberalism as something that isn't even palatable to most of those who reside on the left (and who would be proud to call themselves liberals if it wasn't for such extremists). What does this have to do with Christmas? Well, the ACLU in essence is an organization with a lot of money and a lot of lawyers. They justify their existence by searching for every last crumb to prosecute. Thus we have the case involving the reference to God in the pledge where the plaintiff wasn't even bothered by it. Thus we have the PC police trying to remove Christmas from mainstream society. Thus we have a lot of other silly cases meant to make America a vanilla country instead of a melting pot.

Maybe one of the libs reported him for sharing some inside knowledge and making too much sense in the process. As a result, maybe he has been silenced by the system .

I agree. But if it turns out to be a genetic abnormality, and research provides a cure, should parents choose to fix the abnormality or not?

AD, you know this is a separate issue related to the behavior of activist courts. The Constitutional Amendment as written would actually reinforce the rights of the states to make laws regarding civil unions for gay couples. It would end the debate over what marriage is from a Federal perspective for purposes of closing any loopholes related to interstate commerce.

How are gays being discriminated against? They have every right to marry a member of the opposite sex as any other person does. We are not here saying that gays should be denied the right to free speech, own guns, assemble, vote, etc... Those are the protections safeguarded by the federal government and they apply regardless of sexual preference. The federal government to date has left the issue of marriage and civil unions to the states. Nothing in the federal laws states that gays have the right to marry. Your making a very convoluted argument here.

Don't confuse federal jurisdiction and state jurisdiction. The federal government does not grant marriage rights. Read the Bill of Rights -- I don't think there is anything in there about marriage. Now, with regards to what is in the Bill of Rights, as far as I know gays are afforded every one of those rights without discrimination. Insofar as states rights afford freedom to marry between a man and a woman, gays have the same opportunity to enter into such a marriage as heterosexuals do. They just choose not to. So the issue is not discrimination, it is redefining marriage to include different types of relationships than intended by those who came before us. As people have said many times already, either stick with the definition we currently have or incorporate a definition that does not restrict anyone from their relationship of choice. But saying we are going to selectively continue a policy which you term discrimation on polygamists and family members while relaxing it for gays is just plain hypocritical.

No sarcasm and no apologies needed. I seriously didn't know that there were such laws. I agree, I just don't equate gay marriage with those issues.

You have every right to place gay's access to marriage on the same level as these issues. Most people, including a majority of those in each of the demographics you cited, disagree and are offended by the reference. I wasn't aware that there were ever laws that prohibited interracial couples from marrying, thanks for the knowledge.